In Re: Susan Carol Doxey--Appeal from Probate Court No 3 of Harris County

Annotate this Case
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2007

Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2007.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-07-00852-CV

____________

IN RE SUSAN CAROL DOXEY, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N


On October 12, 2007, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this Court,[1] requesting relief from an order entered by the Honorable Rory R. Olsen, Judge of Probate Court No. 3, Harris County, Texas. Relator contends that such order (1) grants temporary guardianship of relator=s son, Nicholas Todd Whitney, to Rebecca Ann Doxey, and (2) requires supervision of visits between relator and her son. Because relator failed to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, she has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief sought. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3 (requiring that A[a]ll factual statements in the petition must be verified by affidavit made on personal knowledge@); 52.3(j)(1)(A) (requiring Acertified or sworn copy of any order complained of@); 52.7(a)(1) (requiring certified or sworn copies of documents that were filed in underlying proceeding and are material to relator=s claim for relief); and 9.5(a) (requiring party filing any document in court of appeals to serve copy of such document on all parties to proceeding). Accordingly, we deny relator=s petition for writ of mandamus, without prejudice to our reconsideration of an amended petition, appendix, and/or record in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM

Petition Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 1, 2007.

Panel consists of Justices Yates, Fowler, and Guzman.


[1]Relator did not pay the statutory filing fee when she filed her petition for writ of mandamus with this court on October 12. On October 25, 2007, she provided an affidavit of inability to pay costs associated with her petition.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.